linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 3/6] spi: pxa2xx: Remove no more needed PCI ID table

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Y1AczgwCEQO2gvQ2@sirena.org.uk>
Date:   Wed, 19 Oct 2022 16:50:38 +0100
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>,
        Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@...il.com>,
        Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@...e.fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/6] spi: pxa2xx: Remove no more needed PCI ID table

On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 06:06:04PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 12:42:03PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:

> > You should probably also restructure the code interpreting the device
> > IDs so that it's very clear that unknown values are handled well, this
> > would split things between multiple subsystems and right now the code is
> > a bit fragile.

> I'm not sure how better to do this. Any example?

For example a check that the ID is one we know about.  IIRC that bit of
context looked like a tree of if statements with no particular
validation.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)